I'm sure Pat is foaming at the mouth getting the team fired up to face the Steelers today.

Guys are probably ready to run through a wall (or at least a 2-man wedge) to send their inspirational leader out with a bang. At least until they get hit once. Then they'll be like, "Fuck this. Ain't gonna be gettin' hurt in this shit."

Our line here is 10. It should be worse with what we're rolling out there.

The ONLY salvation I can see possible as everyone already has there lockers cleaned out in Berea is the guys may actually play hard to be on film in hopes the new regime notices or another team when they are released.

I have 2 predictions for this game (besides the obvious fact that the Browns will get destroyed):

1. One of Thad's first passes will be a dump off to Hardesty which he will drop.

2. We will see Josh Johnson at some point.

---"It was great training being there. They do it with character and intelligence. They run that organization the right way. They build through the draft. They're patient. It's just the right way to do it. It was a tremendous opportunity to be with them." Jimmy Haslam on why he'd model the Browns after the Steelers, 10/16/12

After hearing the leaked info on his firing Shurmur should have called and confirmed with his boss, then just said screw it I won't be there Sunday. I mean what are the odds he gets a coaching gig ever again anyway, 35:1, not like his professionalism of actually showing up Sunday is gonna make him memorable to anyone, ever.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

As fans we allow certain performances to stir up QB controversies in CTown, why not the same with RBs? I mean it is a position with less significance in today's game, and Hardesty while healthy has looked good.

I'm only half joking.

Hate to say it but with exception of our Oline, and top 3 WRs, nobody on this offense should feel secure in their job.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

So it's generally okay to say that after one season of watching T-Rich play at the NFL level he seems like a solid but unspectacular running back? He had runs of 10 or more in less than half of the games he played in and only 2 or maybe 3 runs of 20 or more. I love how hard he runs, but I really hope that injuries limited his explosiveness, because if what we saw is what we can expect from him going forward, then I think Jim Brown's original assessment may be closer to correct than I would have ever imagined.

When I watch Adrian Peterson and compare what he does with what Trent does - they aren't in the same league. Which may be unfair, because nobody is in AD's league right now - but if you trade up to use the 3rd overall on a running back he should be that kind of special, shouldn't he?

Or you should at least really miss him when he's out of the game, whereas the offense felt about the same today as far as the running game goes.

---"It was great training being there. They do it with character and intelligence. They run that organization the right way. They build through the draft. They're patient. It's just the right way to do it. It was a tremendous opportunity to be with them." Jimmy Haslam on why he'd model the Browns after the Steelers, 10/16/12

You just don't know yet. Peterson has spent chunks of a couple seasons out with injuries (incl. college).Would he even have played this season, with the knee rehab and the ribs injuries Richardson has had? Who knows.

TRich at 100% isn't as explosive a player/runner as Peterson. Maybe a better blocker and receiver in the backfield, and certainly a solid runner, stronger, better short yardage guy, etc., but anyone waiting for TRich to be "explosive" is going to be waiting a long time.

I like TRich and I'll be happy to have him here under a new regime and when he's healthy. But taking him where they did and at that price was a consolation prize/move for the failed attempt to trade up to #2.

RB coach said he had trouble breathing. We've not seen the best out of him yet.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

A balanced rushing attack is nice; ask NO, NE, and another team or two that I can't think of. Someone with an offensive mind more comprehensive than Shur/Chilly could make a nice Run game that could really keep defenses guessing.

LakeErieWarriors wrote:A balanced rushing attack is nice; ask NO, NE, and another team or two that I can't think of. Someone with an offensive mind more comprehensive than Shur/Chilly could make a nice Run game that could really keep defenses guessing.

The reason their running games provide balance is because their QBs are elite. Unless you're convinced Darren Sproles, Pierre Thomas, Stevan Ridley and Danny Woodhead are the catalysts behind the balance and the engines of those offensive machines.

The reason their running games provide balance is because their QBs are elite. Unless you're convinced Darren Sproles, Pierre Thomas, Stevan Ridley and Danny Woodhead are the catalysts behind the balance and the engines of those offensive machines.

Maybe I'm completely missing your point.[/quote]

I think our passing game suffers from our lack of a legitimate run game.

Too predictable of an offense. No hurry-up. No audibles.

This team lost a handful of tight games with one of the worst coaches that even the Browns have ever had. There are teams capable of running an efficient WCO right now; just not it Cleveland, and these guys were to stupid to try something else that might work. Yes, you most definitely need an elite QB to get a Lombardi, but you also need above-average coaching.

LakeErieWarriors wrote:I think our passing game suffers from our lack of a legitimate run game.

Too predictable of an offense. No hurry-up. No audibles.

This team lost a handful of tight games with one of the worst coaches that even the Browns have ever had. There are teams capable of running an efficient WCO right now; just not it Cleveland, and these guys were to stupid to try something else that might work. Yes, you most definitely need an elite QB to get a Lombardi, but you also need above-average coaching.

Our passing game suffers because we have had craptacular play at the QB position. Our run game suffers because we don't have a passing game.

It's 2012/2013.

You and Shur are stuck in the 1980's.

You are dead solid perfect with respect to the coaching.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

The reason their running games provide balance is because their QBs are elite. Unless you're convinced Darren Sproles, Pierre Thomas, Stevan Ridley and Danny Woodhead are the catalysts behind the balance and the engines of those offensive machines.

Maybe I'm completely missing your point.

I think our passing game suffers from our lack of a legitimate run game.

Too predictable of an offense. No hurry-up. No audibles.

This team lost a handful of tight games with one of the worst coaches that even the Browns have ever had. There are teams capable of running an efficient WCO right now; just not it Cleveland, and these guys were to stupid to try something else that might work. Yes, you most definitely need an elite QB to get a Lombardi, but you also need above-average coaching.[/quote]

For the 900th time...slowly....

There is a difference between having a running game, and allocating valuable resources for a PARTICULAR runner.

You run through the passing game in modern football. The Patriots, Saints and everyone the hell else is able to gain yards with ham and eggers because they run from advantages created by their passing formations. Hell, even the Steelers have run the ball the past several years like this. See a mismatch at the line, and hand it off. No mismatch? Well, the good teams move the ball the easiest way. The Browns and Jets "ground and pound."

Never said a running game was worthless, but, quite frankly, to my point, go ahead and peruse the last ten years of Super Bowls, and tell me how many runners lead the way.

Again, no bullshit here - of the last 8 RB's that played in that game - exactly ONE had over 900 yards (the great Rashard Mendenhall) There were a couple 800 yarders and four 700 yarders. Before that? Brandon Jacobs, Lawerence Maroney, Joe Addai, Thomas Jones...

This whole thing is silly. I've said enough, but Christ, go ahead and look this shit up if you happened to miss the last 7 years of games.

Trent might gain 1,600 yards next year. And it'll mean the same as all the very top echelon RB's of this modern era - LT, Larry J, AP, Clinton Portis....all those great Super Bowl runs those guys had....

The NFL is a QB league. We all know this. Can't win a SB without a really good QB. You CAN win a SB with a mediocre RB.

But maybe the Patriots win last year's SB if they have an Adrian Peterson. Maybe the Saints win a 2nd SB if they have an Adrian Peterson. Just like every other position that isn't QB, RB is a position where you CAN win without an elite player but it is easier and your team is better if you do have one. It's not like they're going to battle with Stevan Ridley and Pierre Thomas by choice. It's not like they wouldn't gladly take an elite RB if he were available to them.

There are few truly elite players in the league - players that can succeed anywhere with any supporting personnel - and Peterson is one of them. So I simply expressed how I would sacrifice a draft that has no elite QB's to get an elite player at another position, in this case, RB.

If an elite QB (or even a QB that was "good enough" to win a SB) were also available at the same time, I'd opt for the QB.

Peterson himself will not get this team anyplace special. But if an elite QB is not available to you, then you might as well get elite players at other positions to help the young franchise QB that you acquire down the road (if you ever find him).

My place in this discussion has NOTHING to do with Richardson or using this year's #3 pick on a RB.

Hikohadon wrote:I don't know why any of what I said is causing disharmony.

The NFL is a QB league. We all know this. Can't win a SB without a really good QB. You CAN win a SB with a mediocre RB.

But maybe the Patriots win last year's SB if they have an Adrian Peterson. Maybe the Saints win a 2nd SB if they have an Adrian Peterson. Just like every other position that isn't QB, RB is a position where you CAN win without an elite player but it is easier and your team is better if you do have one. It's not like they're going to battle with Stevan Ridley and Pierre Thomas by choice. It's not like they wouldn't gladly take an elite RB if he were available to them.

There are few truly elite players in the league - players that can succeed anywhere with any supporting personnel - and Peterson is one of them. So I simply expressed how I would sacrifice a draft that has no elite QB's to get an elite player at another position, in this case, RB.

If an elite QB (or even a QB that was "good enough" to win a SB) were also available at the same time, I'd opt for the QB.

Peterson himself will not get this team anyplace special. But if an elite QB is not available to you, then you might as well get elite players at other positions to help the young franchise QB that you acquire down the road (if you ever find him).

My place in this discussion has NOTHING to do with Richardson or using this year's #3 pick on a RB.

But I would say a team like New England is running Ridley, Vereen and Woddy by choice.

Cause they understand valuable assets such as high picks are better invested elsewhere. New England has about 9,000 picks each year after fleecing teams like the Raiders. They most certainly would, and would be very able to invest a top pick in a running back should they see it important.

Absolutely having a "premier" guy at the position would help, but A. At what cost to the rest of the team and B. As you state, those guys ain't easy to find.

The New England Patriots, as they sit, with 3 guys you could basically pick off the street at RB, would be better off drafting 6 guys that could rush the passer, hoping one pans out, then they would be drafting a high round running back. Same with the Saints drafting defense, and on and on.

You and I basically agree on the TR point. Others are a little delusional about today's NFL.

This year is a little bit of an anomaly. The top 3 passers by yards are not in the playoffs, while the top 3 rushers by yards are in the playoffs.

Looking at the playoff teams, there are several teams without that elite QB guy, but instead have a main RB and solid defenses (Seattle, San Fran, Houston, Baltimore, Bengals, Vikings).

Is this just a one year anomaly, or a trend where defenses are doing a better job against pass heavy teams? Even the Packers struggled early until they committed more of their offense to the run mid season.